Well, science is just the process of testing the material world and drawing conclusions from that. The tests and the conclusions can be flawed (which comes down to the error of the scientists) but the results cannot be flawed.
If the conclusions can be flawed, then human interpretations of scientific method, and results of those methods can be flawed. I can't think of a step of the method in which human fallibility doesn't come into play. Though, fallibility doesn't equal not credible. More like degrees of reliability at work.
The thing that is tested, being part of a rational universe, will do exactly what that thing does when placed under those conditions and nothing else (either that or we live in a completely random universe where discussing beliefs would be irrelevant anyway). This information, therefore, can be said to be directly from God, so to speak.
"Being part of a rational universe" is an axiom that I imagine some / many would find challenging to substantiate. Not to mention the implications (interpretations) that are derived from that assumption. I believe the universe is rational and that scientific research is further determining this. My interpretation of science in general, is that we are aspects / examples of intelligent design at work in the universe. We are part in parcel evidence of that claim. Scientific method, in my understanding of things, is evidence of I.D.
So yes, science, in principle at least, is infallible.
Still debatable, I would say. Having everything to do with accepted assumptions and axioms. Remind me to start a thread here of "what is science" for that inquiry and the inevitable diverse responses among groups of many humans are something I find very fascinating. If such a thread exists, I shall like to review it, sooner than later.
Science as infallible is akin to saying knowledge is infallible. Also, I would argue akin to claim that spirituality is infallible. Or if that is too much of a stretch, then I'd go with philosophy instead.
Back to OP inquiry. I do believe at least some Christians would argue in vein of "Christian science" is infallible. Basing this on certain axioms and, as said previously in this thread, "The being that is tested, being part of a Christian universe, will do exactly what that being does when placed under those conditions and nothing else."
"Those conditions" is where other huge part of interpretation is coming into play. But is whole, enormous other aspect of the larger argument that I don't care to get into right now.
